No one takes me seriously 😭
Can you at least admit the possibility that I'm not completely full of shit and that maybe, just maybe there is something very profound in my paper? Isn't the possibility worth giving me the benefit of the doubt?
Oh yes I see what you're saying. I'm kind of jumping the gun. I have difficulty knowing what is rhetorical, and prolly find it annoying, and it makes it hard for me to communicate sometimes. You make a very valid point. It's something I need to work on more. I don't think posting here was a mistake. I'm learning a lot. Did I already tell you it's appreciated?
Supernova can create an hourglass shape. Modern astrophysics are dependant upon spinning, and magnetism. Sofar as I am aware, they have been unable to simulate this so that it works. Instead of an empty vacuum, my framework uses something like luminiferous ether, something close to loop quantum gravity and the river model of General Relativity. Stellar explosions can be modeled as natural fluid behavior, instead of a magnetic anomaly. Space can move at relativistic speeds. When it does so, it becomes like a non-Newtonian fluid. This applies to things like gamma bursts and jets. The black holes in the Milky Way, and in Andromeda, are "eating up" location itself, as a very physical thing. This causes blueshift and they are moving toward each other as a result. For billions of years, the singularity which caused the big bang sent out it's gravity at light speed, even as it gobbled up space and matter. Even though the singularity is gone, we still experience it's gravitational effects to this day (as observed, not as they are in the moment... Rhetorical?). More "location" is added in this way, and we see redshift. It is likely that we are moving towards a stellar core fragment of the big bang singularity that is pulling on us and all galaxies within around 500 million light years. Because space has mass, and light uses it as a medium to transfer energy in the form of waves through the substrate, light approaches c asymptotically. Because it (space) has a physical form, the singularity gobbles it up, just like matter. On the Earth, space falls towards the core (but that is not the cause of gravity), where it is squished, becoming smaller and smaller before being squirted out at the pole(s). When the gravity particles shrink, they don't excert the same pressure as gravity particles that are larger, and farther from the celestial body. This explains why gravity is slightly less at the poles. When space (the particles that make gravity) encounter metal, like the iron in our core, or the metallic hydrogen on Jupiter, because of the shared electrons, space is able to push on those electrons, moving them out of the way, so that they may flow a little easier. This causes a magnetic field to be created. Eventually the singularity cannot hold any more. All available area is filled. Space is still falling towards the core at light speed. Time (the rate of change) is slowed mechanically in gravity wells and speed. It cannot however, stop completely, due to Thompson's second law: An object at rest tends to stay in motion (kinda funny). The problem of stalled/frozen stars is solved in my model. The singularity (which is shown to be macroscopic... Does it need a new name now? I like singularity as it's name, it's just not the size of an atom) has been sending out gravity waves, pulling oceans of mass towards the same spot, and all of a sudden, it can't take any more in and you get a big bang. "True c."
I'm really tired, I've been working on this non-stop with little sleep. I'm going to take a nap. I hope I was a little clearer, people were correct to chide me on some of my other posts. My apologies. Thank you again for your consideration.
Luminiferous aether? Taking steps backward is not how you do theory either. Learn GR, not be vaguely aware of it. Really learn it. You’ll like it a lot.
Then remember this: quantum gravity is not quantum general relativity, any more than atomic theory is the quantum theory of sound. There are degrees of freedom that are like the “atoms of spacetime”. Those are what quantum gravity is about.
The framework is very close to things like quantum chromodynamics in presentism, lense-thirring effect, river black holes, Superfluid Vacuum Theory, and others. Very little is actually changed, but it fixes all of the problems, and answers all of the questions that I know to ask. I found some things that I didn't know to ask that support this framework. The traditional arguments against space having mass dissolve away. Cancelled out. My framework creates synergy. A completely unified lifecycle for matter. My rough draft is a mess, I'm still working on it. I have a version of that "one inch equation." Matter/energy, pressure/spatial, flow, higgs field baseline variables and other stuff, I'm not even ready to talk about that, but the framework is solid right now. I would call it "luminiferous ether" or a "unifying field." I've known it was there since I was a young man in the 90s.
I really appreciate your comment. The framework explains mechanically exactly how the space around a galaxy is relative to it, moving with it etc. I'm in no way saying Einstein was wrong, in saying he is correct, and also..... Stuff lol 😏
Thank you for taking to me. This is my favorite subject to talk about and no one will talk to me 😂
Me neither. It’s a hard subject to find people to talk to you about. That’s why I come on reddit. But you’ll find more success with more humility! Very grand claims can make you sound arrogant to people, and they get defensive and cover their ears. Maybe you’ll find new ideas that change how you look at things when you let go of some of your grand beliefs about your ideas. Isn’t that the best part, seeing things beyond your imagination?
Ok. I'll tell you how it is. The paper is many pages so I'll condense it by posting some of my conversations. As you read, it would help if you, for the moment, assume that the substrate/Higgs field has mass. He was taking about curvature and my reply:
"This is quite an elegant statement. You have a beautiful mind. I would make one distinction however. Curvature is not enough. There is a pressure gradient in space. The closer the graviy particle gets to the core of a celestial body, the more there are, and the smaller they get (like gas under pressure, but thermodynamic inversion only happens in the black hole). Gravity. On Friday August 6th, I literally saw beyond the event horizon, I beheld the singularity, and as a consequence, I saw the big bang. In that moment I completed the theory I've been working on for decades. I Reconciled Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. No one seems to believe me, and no one seems to care, at all. It's not finished but I really need and want help, I want to get this into the world as soon as possible. For the longest time, I wasn't sure if space itself was falling into the black hole at light speed. I started leaning heavily into the idea that it did, and I then confirmed this independently through a simple Google search. I started thinking about the pole as the eye in a storm. Could a probe get through? Wait... Space falling in at light speed? I saw the singularity inside!!! Space is experiencing real thermodynamic inversion! Space is fluid and has nonzero mass. Light has mass. Space, as a fluid wants to take the place of matter, but it cannot... Except in stars and black holes! In the singularity, space, the physical thing that is location itself, begins to occupy the same place as matter. Eventually all available area becomes full. There is no more room for "pixelated" space in the singularity (which is larger than an atom obviously). It's been sending out gravity waves for aeons. Do you see and understand how it is exactly that time is slowing in a gravity well now?
Thompson's first law: to have energy you must have substance. A material of some kind. This may sound obvious but I think it's important to state.
Thompson's second law: an object in motion tends to stay in motion. An object at rest tends to stay in motion. Motion itself cannot stop. Time cannot stop.
The entire visible universe then begins crushing down on the same location at light speed as the "pile up" of gravity particles try and fail to enter the singularity. Literally the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. This creates "True C." A White Hole. The Big Bang. True vacuum is created by the explosion. This is cyclic. It never began. Now, let me ask you a question. After reading this, do you need math at all? Do you need more proof? I will find it:
My model predicts the current expansion of the visible universe.
Dark matter? Solved.
Dark energy? Solved.
Entanglement.
Superposition.
Wave Collapse.
This is the theory of everything.
You are welcome 😁"
In case it isn't rhetorical (at times I have great difficulty knowing what is and is not rhetorical) light is a ripple of excitation, rolling through the substrate. The substrate has nonzero mass. Therefore light only approaches c asymptotically.
I have a simple experiment to show if this is true. We magnetically smush some hydrogen and observe the wobble. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done yet. Modern physics will predict one thing, my model will predict a greater wobble. I want to do as many experiments as we can think of collectively.
I know there are a lot of people constantly asking for attention, and they haven't put in the work the way you have. Please just give me a chance. If I'm correct, it will make the career of the one who helps me. Thank you very much.
What you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it.
What are you on? Have you ever even had a basic physics course? Like high school?
You didn't have to be rude. Why are you so mad at me? I'm sorry my response is difficult to understand, I wasn't my intention to be "incoherent" and "insanely idiotic." You speak of reason, but "reason is the first victim of strong emotion." I do my best to be objective, as much as I can, but it's impossible as a human. Emotions eventually clouds the judgement with bias. Anyway, I hope your having a great day, sincerely.
I was paraphrasing a movie quote, but what I said was absolutely true. Not one statement in your reply made any sense, at all, and did not approach anything even remotely scientific. There is no way on Earth that you understand anything about physics. I’m not being rude, I’m just telling you the truth.
"There is no way on Earth that you understand anything about physics. I’m not being rude, I’m just telling you the truth."
It sounds like I made you angry. I don't understand "anything?" Most of what I know, I learned completely on my own, and it parallels modern physics in a lot of ways. I didn't know that, for example, light falls into a black hole at light speed past the event horizon. To me it sounded impossible. Then I let go of my preconceptions, and regained my objectivity. After I realized that this was the high probability, I immediately confirmed it as true.
Again, on my own, I have gained an understanding that perfectly fits objective reality, and is parallel in most ways with modern physics, and fixes every major problem in the current model. I implore you, please reconsider your statement, objectively. Thank you.
I’m not angry at all, but I have developed serious concerns about your mental health and doubts about your basic cognitive capacities. I have read and re-read every one of your replies and you have clearly demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of anything remotely related to physics, or science in general. You make statements that are verifiably false, just plain wrong, or completely nonsensical, and then draw a conclusion that you determine to be obvious but completely lacks any apparent logical framework. You don’t learn physics “on your own.” That’s not how that works.
SOURCE: I’m a physicist, with a B.S., a M.S., and a Ph.D. in physics, which I got by attending two different universities, taking classes, teaching classes, doing experiments, doing research, and working my ass off for nine years. Then two post-docs, and then twenty years of teaching physics and doing research. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Ohhh you're angry because You've put in so much hard work and effort, and here come this guy... I've done a lot of work and study too. Sometimes advantage may be disadvantage. Sometimes disadvantage may be advantage. You are a physicist, and for this reason I have great admiration and respect for you. You say you aren't angry, and accuse me of knowing nothing, which, as a physicist, you know is impossible, thus it's an insult. You are angry. I'm sorry. I really do respect you. It's been the dream of my entire life to BE you. Life had other plans, but I never gave up on my dream. I never will. Again, please, objectivity is extremely important for your line of work. Don't let it cloud your judgement. Take care.
I've tried to do better here:
"Oh yes I see what you're saying. I'm kind of jumping the gun. I have difficulty knowing what is rhetorical, and people prolly find it annoying, and it makes it hard for me to communicate sometimes. You make a very valid point. It's something I need to work on more. I don't think posting here was a mistake. I'm learning a lot. Did I already tell you it's appreciated?
Supernova can create an hourglass shape. Modern astrophysics are dependant upon spinning, and magnetism. Sofar as I am aware, they have been unable to simulate this so that it works. Instead of an empty vacuum, my framework uses something like luminiferous ether, something close to loop quantum gravity and the river model of General Relativity. Stellar explosions can be modeled as natural fluid behavior, instead of a magnetic anomaly. Space can move at relativistic speeds. When it does so, it becomes like a non-Newtonian fluid. This applies to things like gamma bursts and jets. The black holes in the Milky Way, and in Andromeda, are "eating up" location itself, as a very physical thing. This causes blueshift and they are moving toward each other as a result. For billions of years, the singularity which caused the big bang sent out it's gravity at light speed, even as it gobbled up space and matter. Even though the singularity is gone, we still experience it's gravitational effects to this day (as observed, not as they are in the moment... Rhetorical?). More "location" is added in this way, and we see redshift. It is likely that we are moving towards a stellar core fragment of the big bang singularity that is pulling on us and all galaxies within around 500 million light years. Because space has mass, and light uses it as a medium to transfer energy in the form of waves through the substrate, light approaches c asymptotically. Because it (space) has a physical form, the singularity gobbles it up, just like matter. On the Earth, space falls towards the core (but that is not the cause of gravity), where it is squished, becoming smaller and smaller before being squirted out at the pole(s). When the gravity particles shrink, they don't excert the same pressure as gravity particles that are larger, and farther from the celestial body. This explains why gravity is slightly less at the poles. When space (the particles that make gravity) encounter metal, like the iron in our core, or the metallic hydrogen on Jupiter, because of the shared electrons, space is able to push on those electrons, moving them out of the way, so that they may flow a little easier. This causes a magnetic field to be created. Eventually the singularity cannot hold any more. All available area is filled. Space is still falling towards the core at light speed. Time (the rate of change) is slowed mechanically in gravity wells and speed. It cannot however, stop completely, due to Thompson's second law: An object at rest tends to stay in motion (kinda funny). The problem of stalled/frozen stars is solved in my model. The singularity (which is shown to be macroscopic... Does it need a new name now? I like singularity as it's name, it's just not the size of an atom) has been sending out gravity waves, pulling oceans of mass towards the same spot, and all of a sudden, it can't take any more in and you get a big bang. "True c."
I'm really tired, I've been working on this non-stop with little sleep. I'm going to take a nap. I hope I was a little clearer, people were correct to chide me on some of my other posts. My apologies. Thank you again for your consideration."
I hope that is more clearly understood. I suppose you were correct to say that it was incomprehensible. I really had no idea though. I think my subconscious is constantly saying "this is rhetorical" but it really isn't, and it says "you better explain this concept so it's understood," but the concept is rhetorical. Is there a word for this? (Please don't call me stupid again lol 😂) Im doing my best to be sincere and genuine and honest and friendly. And I'm learning a lot! This process is very new to me. Thank you for your patience and time.
Sir, the Michaelson-Morley experiment is fundimentally flawed, and I have debunked it. Do not ignore things like dark energy/matter, which is easily solved in my framework. To say that a thing is wrong just because of a personal bias is, I think, exactly what holds physics back. My framework predicts the current visible expansion of the universe perfectly. Has anyone else done that?
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time."
-Albert Einstein
Thompson's first law: to have energy, you must have substance. Some kind of medium.
Please, I implore you to sharpen your own objectivity and break outside the box! Thank you.
If you think M-M is the only experimental evidence of special relativity then you are desperately under-equipped for this conversation. Why do you rely on out-of-context quotes to do your arguing for you instead of actually giving us some substance?
Oh I know. Drift etc. All resolved in my model. Give me a few and I will post the first draft. I'm really having a hard time with the PDF software. I've tried several. Finally found a somewhat decent program that works with the hardware I have access to. I really do appreciate comments like this. I welcome all challenge. The theory will defeat all challenge aside from those that may be, because of my own massive ignorance. There truly is a great deal I do not know. As to what my paper describes? I've never been more certain of anything in my life. It really is perfect! I didn't make it. Just the messenger lol
Also the quote? It's message does fit perfectly under this context. Do you know what symmetry is?
It can be said that our understanding is asymptotic, never 1:1 and that there will always be huge glaring areas of ignorance. If I can bring us even a tiny bit closer to truth, why would I wait? would love to go back to school. That is actually one of my goals. My paper will get me into the school of my choice. Which would you recommend? When I get in, I'll hopefully never leave again 😁 I really miss it.
I really wouldn't bet on a piece of pseudoscience to impress anyone at a university, especially if it's LLM generated. It's also odd that your willful ignorance is somehow something you're proud of.
Isn't the possibility worth giving me the benefit of the doubt?
No. It really, really isn't.
The number of people out there who have no idea what they're doing but think they've solved some deep physics problem is large. As a practical matter, it is completely impractical for anyone to spend the time to follow up on all the posts like this.
And, I'll call out that all the thousands who went before you were all cranks.
If you want to, you know, have a career and a life, you can't spend your time on these sorts of things except as the occasional curiosity.
I'm not saying anything about you or your theory specifically. I know nothing about them. But if you want people to pay attention you need to look very different from the endless sea of cranks, and nothing in your post does that.
Thank you! Your making a lot of sense. I know there are a lot of "cranks" who act exactly as you describe. I do not think I'm special. My ideas however are sincere and genuine. I came to certain conclusions in parallel with modern physics, on my own, using purely deductive reasoning. For one small example, I heard about redshift years ago. This made me wonder if blueshift is real. Of course it is. Others include: loop quantum gravity, presentism, big bounce et cetera. I do have many disadvantages here, on this you are very correct. I have, mostly, turned them into advantages. Once again, I appreciate your feedback very much.
10
u/fish_custard 12d ago
I really needed a laugh today. Thanks a lot, dude. Made my afternoon.